freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:17am:


Bullshit.

Here's "coherent" for you FD:

Verse 1: all mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims - be warned.

Verses 2-3: you have a grace period of a few months - get your poo together and know that remaining faithful to your treaty is best for you - turning away will not cause Allah to fail

Verse 4: exempted are those mushriken who have been faithful to their treaties

Verse 5: when the grace period is over, kill the mushriken [who remain belligerent and unfaithful to their treaties] wherever you find them etc


Here's what incoherent looks like FD:

- claiming the 'starting point' of the verse comes in way down in verse 5, a general command to kill *ALL* the mushriken wherever you find them, treaty or no treaty - even though every verse before verse 5, talks specifically and only about mushriken to whom the muslims have a treaty, and there is not once any mention of other mushriken (ie who don't have a treaty).

- not believing that the very first verse that specifies only those mushriken who have a treaty is what the chapter is restricted to - even though there is no subsequent mention of other mushriken, and no indication whatsoever that other mushriken are 'in scope'.

- even after specifying *ONLY* those mushriken to whom a treaty has been made, and after specifying a grace period (sacred months) for those mushriken to reaffirm their pledges - somehow thinking that the preamble in verse 5 "when the sacred months (grace period) have passed" - is not specifically referring to those mushriken who were given a grace period in the first place!

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 10:17am:


"kill the mushriken wherever you find them" is obviously a "sub-clause", if you insist on putting it that way, of the opening verse ("clause") putting the mushriken to whom a treaty has been made on notice. Again, you are unable to reconcile how verse 1 can make any sense if its declaring open season on all mushriken - treaty or no.

Again, can you find any specific reference to mushriken who have don't have any treaty that might justify the claim that its talking about some mushriken other than those mentioned in verse 1 and 3? Do you concede that the only mushriken specifically mentioned are those with a treaty? Is this too hard for you FD?

moses wrote on Apr 27^th, 2017 at 11:05am:


Because fundamentalist Christians dispute that revocation. Still insisting that the world was created in 7 days and arguing against evolution.

By the way if in fact Jesus did abolish it. Leviticus is part of the old testament correct. Why is Leviticus 20:13 still being quoted against same sex marriage. " If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

Not only so called apologist for Islam quote the OT. (I object to your label by the way) Many Christians still adhere to its texts.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:


My guess is that you are not listening or understanding what I'm actually saying vis why this translation is completely incoherent. Like, for example in my very last post where I specifically broke this sequence of yours down for you and explained why it is nonsensical.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:


Finally he addresses the point!

Well something resembling an attempt anyway - in usual FD style of simplistically dismissing  the entire point with a catchy one-liner.

But there's just one problem with this explanation FD - if Muhammad is now free from those he has a treaty with, how do you explain the Quran seemingly backpeddling in verse 4, where it says that actually you (Muhammad) are not free from obligation with those you have a treaty with - specifically those who have remained faithful to the treaty?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 12:21pm:


jeez, you still persisting with these non-arguments?

How about you address an actual relevant point - like the fact that the only mushriken that chapter 9 actually refers to are those who have a treaty. Agreed? How do you reconcile the fact that you are insisting the Quran must refer to people it doesn't even mention? What possible reason is there to believe that after opening the chapter by referring to mushriken who have a treaty with the muslims, then talking about those mushriken and the treaties they had - and *NEVER* once making mention of any other mushriken - it must necessarily be talking about those other non-treaty mushriken? Does it really come down to a made up version of Muhammad's actions and unsourced claims about Abu Bakr from wikipedia?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 4:24pm:


Here's a radical thought - how about you quote something relevant to that?

Like say this...

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 11:07am:


You'll find I actually dealt directly with your silly made up sequence of events here.

Will you take a question yourself, FD? I have one for you.

You're back.

Up for a question?

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2017 at 8:24pm:


No idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, do you agree that in your little sequence, you reverse the order in which the actual verse appear in the Quran? - namely first is kill the mushriken, then you look at exceptions? Do you agree that putting it in its actual order - ie *FIRST* put the mushriken who have a treaty on notice and give them a grace period, *SECOND* declare that the mushriken who have been faithful to their treaty are exempted - and then command the mushriken to be killed *AFTER* preambling with a direct reference to the expiration of the aforementioned grace period - gives a completely different spin to your version?

Quote:


You keep making reference to non-Muslims who come to Muslims seeking protection, as if this somehow negates all the promotion of organised violence.

What obligations does verse 1 refer to? To me, this is saying that the Mushriken with a treaty are exempted from the general rule in verse 5. This is also repeated in verse 4. It does not make sense to use the treaty violaters as the general rule and those who keep to their treaties as the exception. Also, verse 2 and 3 refer to mushriken in general and verse 3 refers to all people.

Quote:


It is your interpretation that gets it backwards, and forces the reader to assume Muhammad is an imbecile. This is your argument:

What Muhammad wanted to say: only kill non-Muslims who break a treaty (an irrational proposition to begin with)

What Muhammad actually said: Kill non-Muslims wherever you find them.

Consider the obvious weight of this instruction. Would Muhammad get it wrong or leave it absurdly ambiguous?

But there are exceptions right? Yes, and they are clearly stated. Not in the sacred months. Not the ones you have a treaty with.

Ah, so Muhammad may have mistakenly instructed Muslims to wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims in verse 5, but he made it clear that the entire chapter only applies to those with a treaty, right? No. It does not actually state this. When it states exclusions it does so openly and explicitly, but you expect us to believe there is an implicit exclusion all the way back in verse 1 (how is that for getting the order backwards?). Verse 1 remains both coherent and consistent with the rest of the verses if it is taken at face value - as a self contained statement rather than a poorly worded broad exclusion that is not actually presented as such.

Both our interpretations introduce the killing in verse 5 and the inclusions and exclusions earlier. Mine does this where the Koran presents them as exclusions and where it makes sense. Your interpretation does the opposite - more backwards, and inserting things into the Koran that are not actually there.

How do you explain the fact that your interpretation is completely at odds with the actions of Muhammad and the rightly guided Caliphs?

Were there any Muslim theologians who interpreted chapter 9 your way in the first century of Islam? Or did they only come up with this lie after they were no longer in a position to slaughter the infidel wherever they found them and had to instead project a more benign image for political reasons?